Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church.

Every single one has.

Quote

At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.

Having rejected Ephesus, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith remained in, or rather remained, the Church. What the Nestorians did after the left with their consent and all, is of no consequence. Which is why, after the Vatican betrayed Constantinople I, Rome's consent means nothing anymore to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith either.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church.

Every single one has.

Quote

At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.

Having rejected Ephesus, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith remained in, or rather remained, the Church. What the Nestorians did after the left with their consent and all, is of no consequence. Which is why, after the Vatican betrayed Constantinople I, Rome's consent means nothing anymore to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith either.

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Thank you for the post. Alas it is not has helpful as I would like, because I hold that the consent of the whole Church, which is an expression of sobornicity, is necessary for the teaching of a council to be God-inspired.

That, I know, is one Orthodox point of view, but it is not the only Orthodox point of view. Compare, e.g., the view of Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis:

Quote

The acceptance a posteriori of the decisions of a synod by the entire body of the Church is not altoglether irrelevant to the ecumenical character of the synod. However, such an acceptance should be considered the external proof of ecumenicity, that is, as its result and not its cause. That is to say, if a synod happens to be inherently infallible, because of the decisions of the holy Fathers assembled in the Holy Spirit, then it is necessary that it be obligatory for the conscience of the faithful, in which case this external fact persuades us that the synod was truly infallible. This, however, does not mean that the acceptance a posteriori is a constitutive and internal element of the ecumenicity of the synod but rather its unavoidable consequence and result. (The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology, p. 226)

If ratification by the Church is understood as a constitutive element of an Ecumenical Council, then the very notion of the Ecumenical Council is undone, says Harkianakis: "With such an understanding, the Ecumenical Synod could not be regarded as speaking in the Holy Spirit, but would become a kind of experiment, through which it would seek to ascertain how the people of God react afterwards to those decisions taken by that Ecumenical Synod" (p. 234). He then goes on to note that "the Ecumenical Synods do not speak simply as the authoritative voice of the Church, but they anathematise a priori all those who do not accept their ethico-doctrinal decisions" (p. 235). Clearly the council fathers did not understand their decisions as probationary, pending the approval of the wider Church. They dared to speak a dogmatic word in the name of the Holy Spirit.

But I do not mean to insert myself into an inter-Orthodox debate but only to note the convergence of thinking between one school of Catholic theology (represented by Dulles and Sullivan) and one school of Orthodox theology (represented by Androutsos and Harkianakis).

Arb. Sylianos begs one question after another. He doesn't explain why to doubt the Gospel Truth.

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Surely you can't believe there have been any ecumenical councils then, can you? There has never been one that included the whole Church. At most, in the case of First Nicaea and First Constantinople, they included the Churches of the Roman and Sassanid Empires. Or it would seem that at very most the first two would be all that you could accept. Surely once the Assyrian Church of the East is no longer consenting, there are no longer ecumenical councils.

Of course I believe that there have been ecumenical councils, and the way that I know a council is ecumenical is by its commemoration in the liturgy of the Church. Whether or not a council is God-inspired is not determined by some form of juridical act of a particular bishop; instead, it is established through the worship and veneration of the council in question by the Church at prayer. The rule of prayer is the rule of belief.

Did the Nestorian Bishops of China commemorate the rulings of The Third Council of Constantinople in their liturgy, do you think?

I think not. Why should we care?

Quote

A council is ecumenical if the full teaching authority of the magisterium is present within it.

The institution of the "magisterium" was created long after the last Ecumenical Council.

Quote

The easterners who say that it requires the consent of the "whole" Church just artificially limit "The Church" to the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

It is neither artificial, nor do we include the "Roman Catholic Church" i.e. the Vatican.

Quote

If it's applied to the whole Church in reality (Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, the Churches flung all over Eurasia and Africa that Rome and Constantinople had no contact with) it becomes clear how absurdly impossible it makes the task of summoning an ecumenical council.

Constantinople I not only had only a limited number of bishops and only from alongside the central border of the Empire, but also had the most saints in attendence. And wrote the Ecumenical Creed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.

The Assyrian Church of the East & the Oriental Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical. That they are schismatic shouldn't matter. The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 12:42:25 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

Oh dear...I didn't mean you are dumb. I meant touting Father Sergei as any kind of expert on the papal Church is a dumb thing to do...That hardly makes you dumb. You are much smarter than I am in many ways so let's not compare or I'll feel very badly at the end of the day... Besides I like the word "dumb"...it is rather an innocent thing, in my dictionary. Lost, distracted, slightly off base...dopey...dopey's good...I am dopey more often than not.

It is telling, isn't it? Oh well. I am not as smart as you are. I know this. I hope that explains my dumb posts. But just to be clear, I don't hold up Sergei as an examplar of wisdom nor do I hold him up as *the* authority on Papism. I'm sorry that you felt the need to declare my supposed beliefs without having consulted me first. These passionate discussions are not good for my soul.

Father Sergei's theology, in general, is held out by self-identified conservative Orthodox believers as a 20th century exemplar of how NOT to be Orthodox.

And yet you would hold him up as an exemplar of wisdom with regard to his knowledge and understanding of the Roman Church.

And yet still, his knowledge of the Roman Church and the papacy is about as twisted as his knowledge and understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas....or the Wisdom books of the Old Testament...which led him nearly into heresy and at least into heterodox thinking within Orthodoxy.

And this is who you would follow over the cliff against the papal Church...

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows. If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary. The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system. At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered. We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.

Under your system, how does one know that the EOs were right and not the Assyrians?

In fact, none of us knows. If we knew, then an act of divine faith would not be necessary. The Roman magisterial system is no more "rational" or "logical" than the Orthodox magisterial system. At some point, a divine act of faith is surrendered. We can all adduce our reasons and evidences to support that "special point," but we cannot escape the leap of faith.

Agreed, but the Catholic system seems more internally consistent.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

The Nestorians and Miaphysites broke communion over the councils they rejected, but since I venerate all seven ecumenical councils it must be pretty clear that I am neither Nestorian nor Miaphysite.Now with that out of the way: When three men claimed to be pope during the 14th and 15th century how did the all powerful papacy insure unity? Isn't it true to say that the papacy itself became the cause of disunity throughout the West?Alas, having a single bishop with universal powers does not insure unity.

And the Eastern Orthodox broke communion over the west's custom of using unleavened bread in the mass. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are schismatics, just as the Assyrian Church of the East is.

The Vatican was struck from the diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church when it obeyed the German rulers rather than the Ecumenical fathers and inserted the filioque, and the Vatican has been in schism and heresy ever since. That predated the Normans suppressing the use of leavened bread.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches remained the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Vatican continued to induce schisms from them by the sword.

Quote

The answer to your question is the Council of Constance, the 15th ecumenical council of the universal church.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church held no such Council.

The Vatican, Avignon and Pisa got involved in a council at Constance, but since the "supreme pontiffs" claimed that the supreme pontiff alone could call councils, alone could validate their decress, and the demise of the tiara dissolved any council in process, Constance couldn't have solved the problem that the Patriarchate of the West had painted itself into, a fact confirmed when the Council of Siena was called as the Council of Constance-which installed the pope Martin V-required, but Martin didn't follow through with the terms of the Council (Constance) which installed him. Later the Vatican denounced Siena as heretical. But when you're a supreme pontiff who speaks infallibly, you can deny what your predecessors have done, as long as your successors do not disagree.

It is an answer, but it is just an answer that you do not like, because it is an answer that excludes the necessity of a super bishop to run everything.

No, it's not an answer because it expresses no discernable view on the matter of any kind. It's deliberately cryptic nonsense.

Nothing cryptic about it at all. Now how the Vatican accepts Constance but rejects Siena, that's a mystery.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The reason it matters is because of the receptionist view of infallibility taken by Orthodox theology.

The Assyrian Church of the East & the Oriental Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and the seven sacraments. Under the receptionist view, if they don't accept a council, it's not ecumenical.

You are squeezing the Vatican's apples to try to get Orthodox orange juice.

The Orthodox Church has not validated the apostolic succession of the Assyrian Church of the East, nor its seven sacraments (btw, the seven they have are not the same as ours). I'm aware that you all like to split hairs over alleged valid but illicit orders and such, but we don't waste time on such things. So no, under the receptionist view we don't waste speculation on those the Ecumenical Councils have defined outside of the Church.

Quote

That they are schismatic shouldn't matter.

For the Vatican it doesn't. In fact you will commune with them. But since the Vatican is in schism and heresy, its actions with others in schism and heresy are of no concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confesses the Orthodox Faith.

Quote

The receptionist view was formed ad hoc to reject western councils and didn't take account of the fact that not all councils the EO acknowledge as ecumenical achieved universal reception.

LOL. Yes, we have nothing better to do than to keep up with the Vatican.

The Ecumenical Councils are universally received, which ipso facto makes the receivers members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Arb. Sylianos begs one question after another. He doesn't explain why to doubt the Gospel Truth.

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Your biblical citation proves nothing, of course. Who are the sheep? How do they know they are the true sheep and not all those other "Christian" sheep who are equally convinced they too are rightly hearing the voice of their shepherd?

But returning to Harkanakis: his central argument is that the receptionist theory of Khomiakov is a 19th century Slavic invention and does not represent the classic Orthodox understanding. I suggest you read his book. Also see Perry Robinson's discussion: Against Khomiakov.

The argument begs the question. I could use the same fallacy to "prove" that the Eastern Orthodox are in the wrong because they do not adhere to the "universally accepted" 8th-21st councils. The ecumenical councils are not universally accepted, the Orthodox 'acceptance' theory of infallible magisterium is extremely shoddy.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 02:04:20 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

Arb. Sylianos begs one question after another. He doesn't explain why to doubt the Gospel Truth.

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; 2 but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15 as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Your biblical citation proves nothing, of course. Who are the sheep? How do they know they are the true sheep and not all those other "Christian" sheep who are equally convinced they too are rightly hearing the voice of their shepherd?

Is this a confession that you do not hear His voice?

Quote

But returning to Harkanakis: his central argument is that the receptionist theory of Khomiakov is a 19th century Slavic invention and does not represent the classic Orthodox understanding. I suggest you read his book. Also see Perry Robinson's discussion: Against Khomiakov.

Abp. Stylianos was one of the troika that came to America when the Phanar sacked Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory, and gave us Abp. Spyridon. During the inspectiion tour, he boasted that his life accomplishment was establishing Hellenism (not Orthodoxy, mind you, but Hellenism) in Australia. He also revealed, so I've been told, that he said he doesn't speak English with an Australian accent because he doesn't have much use for English in Australia. That he would dismiss sometihing slavic doesn't suprise me, nor does it interest me.

I can, and have, read the history of the reception of the First Three Councils. The Third tried to minimize making any statement, beyond deposing Nestorius. The Second only claimed to repeat the First. The exact Acts and Degrees of the First do not survive. Doesn't fit Abp. Stylianos' ideas, nor does he seem to even try to distinquish the assurance of the iconoclast council of Hieria or Constantinople IV (869) from the assurance of the Fathers.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The argument begs the question. I could use the same fallacy to "prove" that the Eastern Orthodox are in the wrong because they do not adhere to the "universally accepted" 8th-21st councils. The ecumenical councils are not universally accepted, the Orthodox 'acceptance' theory of infallible magisterium is extremely shoddy.

Then accept Anglican orders.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Anglican Orders are not accepted because the Edwardine Ordinals introduced by Thomas Cranmer removed key references to the sacramental nature of the Priesthood and thus corrupted the nature of the Sacrament of Ordination as practiced in the Anglican Communion. It isn't simply because the Anglican Communion went in to schism with the Catholic Church.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 03:27:59 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

Speaking to people in other threads on here got me investigating the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the western Church more closely. I must admit that I misunderstood it very much myself, even having known that it was quite misunderstood before.

The view presented by First Vatican Council is that the Pope, in his capacity as Dean of the College of Bishops, has the authority to dogmatically define what the teaching of the magisterium is on a given issue. In this view, the Pope may not introduce a dogma which is new. He may only define a dogma which the magisterium already holds. In these instances, the definition is infallible, not because of anything inhering in the Pope, but because the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is infallible.

So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered. So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome?

The Orthodox view on infallibility has tended to be that a view is gradually recognized as infallible when it is accepted by the whole Church. As a westerner, a problem with that seems to me to be that the Orthodox have no problem recognizing Ephesus and Chalcedon as infallible and ecumenical over the objections of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?). The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO. As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.

If the issue is simply "gradual acceptance" I can't think of any reason why the OOC and ACE's objections shouldn't count, except that the EOC is bigger than them. But if this is all there is to it, it would of course run in to the problem that the RCC dwarfs the EOC.

Just as the knights dwarfed the former Orthodox peasants (and their subsequent descendants) who became Eastern Catholic under the sword. You're the one who brought up size - no EO put the OO or ACOE to sword to accept Chalcedon. The ACOE were decimated by Genghis Khan. Why has Rome become so strong and the OO become so weak since gee whiz, being infallible is like being the 800 lb guerilla in a room with dwarves. Didn't Paul say that the strong ought to carry the burdens of the weak (Romans 15:1-2)?

Quote

We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification.

How would infallibility (e.g. Pope of Rome) carry the weak (e.g. EO, OO) given how the weak, already weakened by oppression, are under siege by the strong?

Can the views on infallibility be dovetailed together, were the churches to reunite? If it was made more clear that the Pope has no authority to create dogma, but only to define dogma which is already held, could the Orthodox accept that?

No; however, great temptations have befallen the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs and your dream may come true, some day; as long as I don't live to see it....

When compared to the Roman Catholic Church, both the EO and OO appear weak from the RCC POV. Because the OO have been decimated and out of communion for 15 Centuries, the EO's relationship to the OO is not close; however, that is not an indication that the EO are "stronger" than the OO since both pray for the Unity of the Faith in their respective Divine Liturgy. Of course, Rome would want to be united with everyone.

Anglican Orders are not accepted because the Edwardine Ordinals introduced by Thomas Cranmer removed key references to the sacramental nature of the Priesthood and thus corrupted the nature of the Sacrament of Ordination as practiced in the Anglican Communion. It isn't simply because the Anglican Communion went in to schism with the Catholic Church.

The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism. That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.

I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders. I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way. You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith. We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.

Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Abp. Stylianos was one of the troika that came to America when the Phanar sacked Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory, and gave us Abp. Spyridon. During the inspectiion tour, he boasted that his life accomplishment was establishing Hellenism (not Orthodoxy, mind you, but Hellenism) in Australia. He also revealed, so I've been told, that he said he doesn't speak English with an Australian accent because he doesn't have much use for English in Australia. That he would dismiss sometihing slavic doesn't suprise me, nor does it interest me.

A shining example of the One True Orthodox Church in action...well...at least one or two of them in this case.

He's made all of your Catholic points in one thoughtless little brush-off.

Abp. Stylianos was one of the troika that came to America when the Phanar sacked Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory, and gave us Abp. Spyridon. During the inspectiion tour, he boasted that his life accomplishment was establishing Hellenism (not Orthodoxy, mind you, but Hellenism) in Australia. He also revealed, so I've been told, that he said he doesn't speak English with an Australian accent because he doesn't have much use for English in Australia. That he would dismiss sometihing slavic doesn't suprise me, nor does it interest me.

A shining example of the One True Orthodox Church in action...well...at least one or two of them in this case.

He's made all of your Catholic points in one thoughtless little brush-off.

I don't know all about Abp. Stylianos, beyond his Phanariotism, so if you do I'll defer to your assessment of him.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered. So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome? Huh

It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.

The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction.

Quote from: SolEX01

As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?). The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO. As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.

You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.

Quote from: ialmisry

The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism. That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.

I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders. I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way. You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith. We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.

The view that schism invalidates apostolic succession is called the donatist heresy.

And the Vatican did not change the faith. There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision, and much evidence to the contrary. Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for his embrace of monophysitism. Acacius' successor, Patriarch Euphemius, and Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I both protested, but the Pontiff's ruling was firm, and they were compelled to obey.

Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority. Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.

Quote from: ialmisry

Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 01:56:55 PM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered. So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome? Huh

It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.

Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine.

You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?). The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO. As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.

You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.

You're correct ... because of their near-extinction, all those Chaldean / ACOE Churches are essentially the same and they would logically flock to Rome who has more "geopolitical" strength as a sovereign nation not a member of EU or NATO (but is a member of the UN).

There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision, and much evidence to the contrary. Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for the East's embrace of monophysitism.

Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today? I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all. When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?

Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority. Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.

The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.

Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.

Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?

Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The Pope was the ruler of the city of Rome as well as a official of the Church. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope in that (political) capacity, and acclaimed Imperator by the Roman people. The people of Rome have the right to choose their own Emperor.

Quote from: SolEx01

You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

Their actions speak to it. They were regularly interfering in the ecclesiastical and doctrinal affairs of Churches outside of their own Patriarchate, and expecting to be obeyed. They were, until Photios.

For example, from a letter of Pope Julius to the east:

"It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this... O beloved!...For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus...And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. "

Or when Pope Celestine wrote to the Bishops of Illyricum:

"We especially are bound to have care for all, to whom Christ imposed the necessity of dealing with all, in the holy apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys for opening and shutting... "

Or in the words of Philip, Papal Legate to the Council of Ephesus:

"Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church... to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors. "

Quote from: SolEX01

Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today? I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all. When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?

Pope Saint Gelasius I was ordering that the name of Acacius be struck from the diptychs in Constantinople. To my knowledge it has never been the custom to keep diptychs in Rome.

Quote from: SolEx01

The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.

Charlemagne did not need to be an enemy of the Byzantines. He proposed to marry Empress Irene in fact, and she was friendly to the idea, but the people rose up and overthrew her when faced with the prospect that she might wed a 'barbarian' Frank.

What happened in 1204 was a horrific event which was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Innocent III, but I remind you that at the outset of the Crusades, the west was most eager to come to the aid and defense of their eastern brothers, after Manzikert threatened the destruction of the Empire. The memory of the Crusades is painful, for obvious reasons, and the East is not wrong to resent what was later done at the hands of those false crusaders who betrayed the trust placed in them, both by the people of the east and the pontiffs of Rome, but the west did not hate the east from the time of Charlemagne. The Genoese ships, sent by the Pope, who defied the fleet of Mehmed II to rush supplies to the last defenders of Constantinople under the Ethnomartyr Constantine XI did not hate the east.

Quote from: SolEX01

Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?

Plainly the west understands the magisterium differently from the east, but I don't know what he means with regards to the idea that the magisterium as such is a new creation. The church, west and east, has always asserted itself to hold infallible teaching authority of some form or another.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 03:00:20 PM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

Which Church doctrine or canon law led to the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor when the Christian world remained unified, albeit tenuously?

The Pope was the ruler of the city of Rome as well as a official of the Church. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope in that (political) capacity, and acclaimed Imperator by the Roman people. The people of Rome have the right to choose their own Emperor.

The Pope became the de facto secular ruler of Rome from when the Western Roman Empire ended in 476 to when Charlemagne was crowned in 800?

You say that the people of Rome had the right to choose their own Emperor; however, only those Cardinals under age 80 can vote for a Papal Successor and not the residents of the Vatican nor the residents of Rome of whom the Pope is still Bishop. Maybe I need to read up on the Lateran Treaty....

You're playing armchair theologian with the Holy Fathers of the pre-1054 One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - can you cite where any of those you listed made the claim that "they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine?"

Their actions speak to it. They were regularly interfering in the ecclesiastical and doctrinal affairs of Churches outside of their own Patriarchate, and expecting to be obeyed. They were, until Photios.

For example, from a letter of Pope Julius to the east:

"It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this... O beloved!...For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus...And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. "

Or when Pope Celestine wrote to the Bishops of Illyricum:

"We especially are bound to have care for all, to whom Christ imposed the necessity of dealing with all, in the holy apostle Peter, when He gave him the keys for opening and shutting... "

Or in the words of Philip, Papal Legate to the Council of Ephesus:

"Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church... to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who up to this very age ever lives and judges in his successors. "

Do the Roman Catholics have Diptychs today? I saw the Vatican's Christmas Mass on TV and I didn't see anyone reading Diptychs (well, other than the Deacon who asked for blessings for Pope Benedict XVI, a one Hierarch Diptych, but I digress) - with 201 Cardinals and thousands and thousands of worldwide Bishops, I guess there wasn't enough time to list them all. When Archbishop O'Brien performs Mass, does He read the Diptychs of His suffragan Bishops or even His own predecessors, living and deceased (there aren't that many - 15, I believe)?

Pope Saint Gelasius I was ordering that the name of Acacius be struck from the diptychs in Constantinople. To my knowledge it has never been the custom to keep diptychs in Rome.

Unless that Diptych contains one Hierarch; the Pope of Rome. So if the custom of Rome has been to not keep Diptychs, why would Rome order someone to be struck from the Diptychs other than because they can?

The monothelite patriarchs excommunicated themselves by not accepting Chalcedon; however, the West accepted Charlemagne as Emperor because He could defend and protect the Holy See from those Byzantines, Muslims and other "enemies" of the Faith.

Charlemagne did not need to be an enemy of the Byzantines. He proposed to marry Empress Irene in fact, and she was friendly to the idea, but the people rose up and overthrew her when faced with the prospect that she might wed a 'barbarian' Frank.

Understand that "barbarians" of all stripes and Muslims were laying siege to the walls of Constantinople for a number of Centuries. Just as the people used to select their own Pope (which they no longer can), the residents of Constantinople exercised the right to reject husbands of their Empresses.

What happened in 1204 was a horrific event which was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Innocent III, but I remind you that at the outset of the Crusades, the west was most eager to come to the aid and defense of their eastern brothers, after Manzikert threatened the destruction of the Empire. The memory of the Crusades is painful, for obvious reasons, and the East is not wrong to resent what was later done, but the west did not hate the east from the time of Charlemagne.

I just use Charlemagne to demonstrate an "infant" infallibility in that the Pope of Rome took it upon Himself to anoint Charlemagne just as the Old Testament Kings of Israel were anointed (or Christ was anointed by John the Baptist).

Vatican I vs. the Council of Nicaea - I'm sure a thread exists that compares/contrasts those 2 Councils?

Plainly the west understands the magisterium differently from the east, but I don't know what he means with regards to the idea that the magisterium as such is a new creation. The church, west and east, has always asserted itself to hold infallible teaching authority of some form or another.

Infallibility excludes oikonomia (Economy). If a teaching is absolute, there is no "wiggle room." Example with the Samaritan Woman, Jesus could have personally stoned her to death; however, He exercised Economy and She became a Saint. Infallibility and Magisterium express the view of, "take it or leave it" and many have chosen to "leave it" (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) rather than "take it" (e.g yielding one's desires to the request of a Higher Authority). A perfect example is remarriage of civilly divorced Catholics since the Magisterium does not allow civilly divorced Catholics to remarry in the Catholic Church without obtaining an annulment. If the Magisterium wished to emulate civil courts, they could grant spiritual divorces in a prompt manner and allow divorcees the freedom to remarry in the Catholic Church (whether it's one or two or 100 more times is of no consequence). Just because 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches handle the granting of spiritual divorce in 14 different ways does not mean that the Orthodox or the Magisterium have it right (or wrong) - no one is perfect but Christ allowed Divorce as a form of Economy to eliminate a roadblock from one's salvation. Yet, the infallible Magisterium keeps the roadblock to spiritual divorce in place, why?

The Church is infallible; however, man is not infallible and ultimately men are part of the Church.

So the Holy Spirit waited 1,835 years from Pentecost (year 33) until Vatican I (in 1868) to confirm what you just said while the Eastern Orthodox World was being persecuted by anybody the Catholics/Protestants conquered. So the last 131 (almost 132) years, the Holy Spirit has expressed Himself to the Universal / Catholic Church only via the Pope of Rome? Huh

It's never been acceptable to contradict the Pope of Rome on a matter of Church doctrine or canon law, once Rome has handed down a decision.

Only if Rome is exposing Orthoodxy. But then it is the Orthodoxy, not Rome, that is determinative.

Quote

The conduct of Saint Clement I, Saint Victor I, Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, Saint Leo I, and Saint Gregory I, while it may have been conciliar in style makes clear that in substance they felt themselves to be the highest authorities in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction.

what they thought or felt is of interest only to themselves.

St. Clement I taught the same Orthodox ecclesiology that St. Ignatius I did.

St. Victor I was "rebuked" by the entire Church.

Between SS. Victor and Innoncent I we might mention that Rome recognized Paulinus, and not St. Meletius, as Patriarch of Antioch. Antioch, and the rest of the East, held fast to St. Meletius, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council, which chose, over Rome's objection, his successor St. Flavian.

St. Innocent I was right, but ignored even by the Ultramontanist Jerome.

St. Gelasius I: you meant the False Decretals?

St. Leo wanted the Council of Chalcedon to adopt his Tome as its definition. Not only did the Fathers write their own definition, but they accepted the Tome only after it had been examined for Orthodoxy by a committee of a hundred fathers. St. Leo whines to the empress that even his own suffragans acknowledged canon 28.

St. Gregory I complained about the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and rejected any claims to a "universal bishop." But Constantinople kept the title, and the Vatican latter promoted the pope as "universal bishop," i.e. "the highest authority in Church on canon law and doctrine, and fit to make rulings for the whole church, regardless of jurisdiction."

As a consequence, the OO accept only the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and the ACOE the first two (maybe?). The OO in Armenia, Ethiopia, India, et al. remain a strong Church; albeit weakened from history and separation from the EO. As for the ACOE, they're de facto a part of Rome AFAIK.

You're referring to the Chaldean Catholic Church, I believe.

Your communion agreement with them makes you one as far as we are concerned.

The Orders in the church of England have been in schism from the Catholic Church ever since it followed the Vatican into schism. That happened long before King Edward and Abp. Cramner.

I am aware what defects the Vatican claims in Anglican orders. I am also aware that it doesn't like that the Orthodox Church looks at the Vatican's orders in the same way. You claim that the Anglicans changed the Faith. We agree on that. The Vatican also changed the Faith, misonstruing the priesthood as flowing from the pontifex maximus and personal property which adheres to the recepriant (which he can take with him into schism) which puts you into the same boat, as long as you persist in your schism and heresy.

The view that schism invalidates apostolic succession is called the donatist heresy.

No, its called the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, as taught, for example by St. Cyprian. The Donatists held that apostasy, even if repented from, invalidated the apostolic succession of the lapsi.

Quote

And the Vatican did not change the faith.

Quote

There is no evidence from the first millenium that the authority of Rome could be contradicted once it had made an official decision,

I've cited several above, which could be multiplied.

Quote

and much evidence to the contrary.

Often claimed, never provided.

Quote

Roman Pontiffs regularly interfered in the affairs of Churches outside their own jurisdiction and passed down judgments on the Orthodoxy of other Patriarchs, as, for example, when Pope Saint Gelasius I instructed that the name of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople should be struck from the diptychs for his embrace of monophysitism. Acacius' successor, Patriarch Euphemius, and Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I both protested, but the Pontiff's ruling was firm, and they were compelled to obey.

When Pope Gelasius I died in 496 , the Acacian schism continued for two decades more:

Quote

Then John Talaia, exiled from Alexandria, arrived at Rome and gave a further account of what was happening in the East. The pope wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explain his conduct (Epp. iii et iv, ibid., pp. 239-241). The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed, then forced to receive Communion from Acacius in a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Monophysites named in the diptychs. The pope, having heard of this from the Acoemeti (akoimetoi, sleepless) monks at Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates, deposed and excommunicated Acacius (Epp. vi, vii, viii, ibid., 243 sq.). Acacius retorted by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Thus began the Acacian schism that lasted thirty-five years (484-519). The Acoemeti monks alone at Constantinople stayed in communion with the Holy See; Acacius put their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in schism in 489. His successor, Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-90), tried to reconcile himself with the pope, but refused to give up communion with Monophysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, Anastasius I (491-518), began by keeping the policy of the Henoticon, but gradually went over to complete Monophysitism. Euphemius (490-496), patriarch after Flavitus, again tried to heal the schism, restored the pope's name to his diptychs, denounced Peter Mongus, and accepted Chalcedon; but his efforts came to nothing, since he, too, refused to remove the names of Acacius and Flavitas from the diptychs (see Euphemius of Consstantinople). Gelasius I (492-96) succeeded Felix II at Rome and maintained the same attitude, denouncing absolutely the Henoticon and any other compromise with the heretics. Eventually, when the Emporer Anastasius died (518), the schism was healed. His successor, Justin I (518-27), was a Catholic; he at once sought reunion with Rome. John II, the patriarch (518-20), was also willing to heal the schism. In answer to their petitions, Pope Hormisdas (514-23) sent his famous formula. This was then signed by the emperor, the patriarch, and all the bishops at the capital. On Easter day, 24 March, 519, the union was restored. Monophysite bishops were deposed or fled, and the empire was once more Catholic, till the troubles broke out again under Justinian I (527-65).

The bishops of the capital signed, but the bishops outside refused. The archbishop of Thessalnoica, then in Rome's patriarchate, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two and stomped on it. The troubles were Justinian holding the Fifth Ecumenical Council over the strenous objections of Pope Vigilius, whom the Council struck from the diptychs, until he accpepted its decrees.

Quote

Prior to Patriarch Photios, there is no evidence in the history of the Church that it was acceptable to contradict Papal authority.

Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398. NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

The Fifth Ecumenical Council met over the Pope of Rome's objection, and struck him from the diptychs.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius.

We can go on.

Quote

Indeed, the closest thing the easterners came come up with, the posthumous anathema placed on Pope Honorius I, is condemning him for failing to exercise his authority because he did not excommunicate the monothelite patriarchs of the east.

Sort of shows the "petrine ministry" of strengthening the brethren is nought if it strengthens heresy as well.

Since the institution of the magisterium was done by the Vatican only within the last few centuries, the Orthodox have no acceptance-or any other-theory on the "infallible magisterium," shoddy or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the word "Magisterium" simply refers to the teaching authority of the Church. The teaching authority of the Church most assuredly did not come in to being only a few centuries ago, and the Orthodox have most certainly always held the teaching authority of the Church to be infallible.

We also continue to hold that as part of the Church, not a part of the Church.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 04:31:17 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Pope became the de facto secular ruler of Rome from when the Western Roman Empire ended in 476 to when Charlemagne was crowned in 800?

Overtime the Pope had become the secular ruler of Rome, yes. This is because he was the last imperial official still remaining in the city, more or less.

Quote

You say that the people of Rome had the right to choose their own Emperor; however, only those Cardinals under age 80 can vote for a Papal Successor and not the residents of the Vatican nor the residents of Rome of whom the Pope is still Bishop. Maybe I need to read up on the Lateran Treaty....

The particular means by which a Pope is elected are not dogmatically defined, but currently yes it is the procedure that members of the College of Cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to elect the Pope.

Quote

Are these citations from CCEL or elsewhere?

By CCEL do you mean 'Christian Classics Ethereal Library'? The quotes are from Keys Over the Christian World by Scott Butler and John Collorafi

Quote

Unless that Diptych contains one Hierarch; the Pope of Rome. So if the custom of Rome has been to not keep Diptychs, why would Rome order someone to be struck from the Diptychs other than because they can?

Patriarch Acacius had been a proponent of the monothelite heresy.

Quote

Understand that "barbarians" of all stripes and Muslims were laying siege to the walls of Constantinople for a number of Centuries. Just as the people used to select their own Pope (which they no longer can), the residents of Constantinople exercised the right to reject husbands of their Empresses.

That's fine, I do not mind that Irene did not marry Charlemagne. I am just pointing out that the west was not bent on being an enemy of the east.

Quote

I just use Charlemagne to demonstrate an "infant" infallibility in that the Pope of Rome took it upon Himself to anoint Charlemagne just as the Old Testament Kings of Israel were anointed (or Christ was anointed by John the Baptist).

The infallibility the Roman Pontiffs purport themselves to have is with relation to dogmatic definitions of Church teaching. Infallibility did not bear on the coronation of Charlemagne, that was simply from the Pope's political role as ruler of the City of Rome.

Quote

Infallibility excludes oikonomia (Economy). If a teaching is absolute, there is no "wiggle room." Example with the Samaritan Woman, Jesus could have personally stoned her to death; however, He exercised Economy and She became a Saint. Infallibility and Magisterium express the view of, "take it or leave it" and many have chosen to "leave it" (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) rather than "take it" (e.g yielding one's desires to the request of a Higher Authority). A perfect example is remarriage of civilly divorced Catholics since the Magisterium does not allow civilly divorced Catholics to remarry in the Catholic Church without obtaining an annulment. If the Magisterium wished to emulate civil courts, they could grant spiritual divorces in a prompt manner and allow divorcees the freedom to remarry in the Catholic Church (whether it's one or two or 100 more times is of no consequence). Just because 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches handle the granting of spiritual divorce in 14 different ways does not mean that the Orthodox or the Magisterium have it right (or wrong) - no one is perfect but Christ allowed Divorce as a form of Economy to eliminate a roadblock from one's salvation. Yet, the infallible Magisterium keeps the roadblock to spiritual divorce in place, why?

The Church is infallible; however, man is not infallible and ultimately men are part of the Church.

The only agency which is infallible, of course, is the Holy Spirit. The dispute between the west and east is the way in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is operating in the Church. It's an oversimplification of the western view to say that they simply hold that a 'man' is infallible.

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

You say that the people of Rome had the right to choose their own Emperor; however, only those Cardinals under age 80 can vote for a Papal Successor and not the residents of the Vatican nor the residents of Rome of whom the Pope is still Bishop. Maybe I need to read up on the Lateran Treaty....

The particular means by which a Pope is elected are not dogmatically defined, but currently yes it is the procedure that members of the College of Cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to elect the Pope.

Recent Popes in the last 100 years have defined how a Papal Election should occur. Aren't such pronouncements "outside" of Church teaching?

Unless that Diptych contains one Hierarch; the Pope of Rome. So if the custom of Rome has been to not keep Diptychs, why would Rome order someone to be struck from the Diptychs other than because they can?

Patriarch Acacius had been a proponent of the monothelite heresy.

Isa just described how a Monastery in Constantinople remained in Communion with the Holy See in the period where Constantinople was striking Rome from the Diptychs.

Understand that "barbarians" of all stripes and Muslims were laying siege to the walls of Constantinople for a number of Centuries. Just as the people used to select their own Pope (which they no longer can), the residents of Constantinople exercised the right to reject husbands of their Empresses.

That's fine, I do not mind that Irene did not marry Charlemagne. I am just pointing out that the west was not bent on being an enemy of the east.

I read how differences between West and East were described as "creative tension" but they remained in agreement until 1054.

I just use Charlemagne to demonstrate an "infant" infallibility in that the Pope of Rome took it upon Himself to anoint Charlemagne just as the Old Testament Kings of Israel were anointed (or Christ was anointed by John the Baptist).

The infallibility the Roman Pontiffs purport themselves to have is with relation to dogmatic definitions of Church teaching. Infallibility did not bear on the coronation of Charlemagne, that was simply from the Pope's political role as ruler of the City of Rome.

But the Apostles and their successors didn't consecrate Roman Consuls nor Pilate's replacement, at least before the Edict of Milan. Did the Emperor Constantine grant the Bishop of Rome secular political (Imperial) status or did the Bishop of Rome assume that mantle after 450? 476? some other date?

Infallibility excludes oikonomia (Economy). If a teaching is absolute, there is no "wiggle room." Example with the Samaritan Woman, Jesus could have personally stoned her to death; however, He exercised Economy and She became a Saint. Infallibility and Magisterium express the view of, "take it or leave it" and many have chosen to "leave it" (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church) rather than "take it" (e.g yielding one's desires to the request of a Higher Authority). A perfect example is remarriage of civilly divorced Catholics since the Magisterium does not allow civilly divorced Catholics to remarry in the Catholic Church without obtaining an annulment. If the Magisterium wished to emulate civil courts, they could grant spiritual divorces in a prompt manner and allow divorcees the freedom to remarry in the Catholic Church (whether it's one or two or 100 more times is of no consequence). Just because 14 autocephalous Orthodox Churches handle the granting of spiritual divorce in 14 different ways does not mean that the Orthodox or the Magisterium have it right (or wrong) - no one is perfect but Christ allowed Divorce as a form of Economy to eliminate a roadblock from one's salvation. Yet, the infallible Magisterium keeps the roadblock to spiritual divorce in place, why?

The Church is infallible; however, man is not infallible and ultimately men are part of the Church.

The only agency which is infallible, of course, is the Holy Spirit. The dispute between the west and east is the way in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is operating in the Church. It's an oversimplification of the western view to say that they simply hold that a 'man' is infallible.

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Popes have issued two dogmatic definitions: Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus. The first defines the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The easterners might have a bit of nitpicking to do on "Immaculate Conception", because of the different emphases on Original Sin in west and east, but in substance what it means is the same: Mary lived her whole life without sin. The second defined the assumption of Mary.

I can't see why the Orthodox would feel either of these are heretical.

Indeed the Immaculate Conception as defined in the language, rhetoric and practice of the Roman Catholic Church is not in line with similar teachings of the various jurisdictions of Orthodox, and is rightfully declared heretical by Orthodox standards.

But you bring up a more interesting point, in if Orthodox acknowledge the organizational/structural concept of Papal/Clerical Infallibility in the Roman tradition which we can see from Orthodox history is quite foreign across the board. Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Archbishops are discredited and unseated quite often in our mutual histories for various theological, geopolitical and even economic reasons. Clearly the Orthodox does not support the automatic dogmatic Infallibility of our hierarchical clergy because we have a long history of disputing with these very leaders. This is inherent to the logistical structure of the Orthodox, into more individualized and regionalized jurisdictions and authorities, where as the Roman Catholic hierarchy has been strictly enforced for centuries. Even the Patriarchs have not traditionally been allowed the kinds of unilateral authority and decision-making that Popes in Rome have had. Further, specifically in regards to legalistic and economic situations such as taxes and landownership the Orthodox Church has NEVER in its history in any of its jurisdictions been as tightly centralized as the Roman tradition, but then again, that is the cultural/political legacy and influence of the Roman/Western mind of business sense and logical efficiency which has often been foreign to the Eastern perspective epitomized in Orthodoxy.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not. In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

In practice of course the Bishop of Rome is always elected from among the College of Cardinals.

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

That's the problem: how could a bishop consecrate his superior?

Because the Pope is still merely a bishop. So he is ordained with the same holy orders of any other bishop. The difference is the administrative position he holds in the Church. As 'administrative' head, he has special privileges privy to the office.

The 'infallibility' then isn't because he's Pope. It's because he has the last word.

Regarding the equality of Bishops, while I have not personally witnessed a Papal Mass except for television I have had the privilege to attend a Liturgy celebrated by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Several things struck me with respect to the issue of episcopal equality.

The first that there was none of the special event 'buzz' that seems to permeate a Papal appearance; the every Sunday grandeur of our Divine Liturgy was sufficient for the event. The presence of the Patriarch did not make the Liturgy seem more solemn or grand than a regular Liturgy. The second was that, unlike the Pope, the Patriarch wore no vestment or highly visible insignia that differentiated him from his fellow Bishops in attendance. The third was humorous and I am sorry if my Greek brothers take a little bit of offence, but as a Slav, I leaned over to my wife and whispered that they should have hired some priests from the Moscow Patriarchate to be the Masters of Ceremony as the whole thing seemed rather unorganized to me. Nevertheless, it was a remarkable and moving occasion.

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not. In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

In practice of course the Bishop of Rome is always elected from among the College of Cardinals.

True, but after election and anointing, the Metropolitan Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has a Supreme jurisdictional authority across the Roman Catholic world, and can unilaterally make many decisions, not necessarily theologically but definitely logistically, economically, politically. I think the comparative histories of Orthodox regions and Roman Catholic regions is telling to how these differences arose. The Orthodox tend to come from regions or largely authoritarian political leadership who operate in tandem with the Church, but who dominate legal and economic affairs such as clergy authority, land-ownership and revinue collection/distribution. In Orthodox, the political governments have had a large autonomy in making these kinds of decisions, relegating most theological and religious authority to the Church, where as the Roman Catholic Churches, both at the national and region levels, have often carried much more significant political and economic functions and authorities than in the East. Essentially, the Roman Church needed more authority invested in its clergy because its clergy were inherently invested more political and economic authority than their eastern, Orthodox counterparts. The Alexandrian Patriarchate is an epitomizing example of this void in political and economic authority.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote

In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.

but then you guys claim that a muslim or jewish atheist can baptize.

Quote

In practice of course the Bishop of Rome is always elected from among the College of Cardinals.

Yes, another indication of the creation of the Vatican papacy in the second, not the first, millenium.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 07:10:46 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman

But I'm not; I'm proposing a scenario where the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals at their conclave to elect me, a non-RC layman, to replace Pope Benedict XVI.

You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

After I have apostatized from Orthodoxy or would the Holy Spirit have done that for me? After all, I could refuse and continue my life as an Orthodox layman....

Isa has said it best and Thomist has yet to clarify ... How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective? Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman

But I'm not; I'm proposing a scenario where the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals at their conclave to elect me, a non-RC layman, to replace Pope Benedict XVI.

Can not happen, unless you're a Catholic.

An athiest/muslim/jew/hindu/buddhist/schismatic-Christian can't be Pope anymore than and athiest/muslim/jew/hindu/buddhist/schismatic-Christian can be ordained an Orthodox priest.

You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

After I have apostatized from Orthodoxy or would the Holy Spirit have done that for me? After all, I could refuse and continue my life as an Orthodox layman....

No. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You're either in the Church (as the Catholics see it), or you're not.

Isa has said it best and Thomist has yet to clarify ... How can a College of Cardinals take any mere man and consecrate him to a greater position - almost equal to the Apostles - if we look at the RC perspective? Where is it said in any canonical reference that the Lesser (or Equivalent) consecrates the Greater?

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

Is it the infallibility of the Holy Spirit which prevents my scenario from occurring or is it the College of Cardinals (or an Orthodox Holy Synod) who would ignore the Holy Spirit suggesting a non-Roman Catholic for the Papacy (or likewise a non-Orthodox Christian as the next Orthodox Patriarch)?

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

Is it the infallibility of the Holy Spirit which prevents my scenario from occurring or is it the College of Cardinals (or an Orthodox Holy Synod) who would ignore the Holy Spirit suggesting a non-Roman Catholic for the Papacy (or likewise a non-Orthodox Christian as the next Orthodox Patriarch)?

It isn't about the Holy Spirit's abilities, just as it isn't about the person who is the Pope.

(if the Roman Catholic Church is THE Church of Christ, then...)

Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.

To select someone outside the Church (if somehow theoretically possible) would require that person to enter the Church (be baptized and chrismated) and then given Holy Orders. Only a valid Catholic blessed as a Bishop can be a Pope, i.e Hold the position as "Head of the Church".

I have answered it, but you're attempting to force a scenario that can't and won't work.

Is it the infallibility of the Holy Spirit which prevents my scenario from occurring or is it the College of Cardinals (or an Orthodox Holy Synod) who would ignore the Holy Spirit suggesting a non-Roman Catholic for the Papacy (or likewise a non-Orthodox Christian as the next Orthodox Patriarch)?

It isn't about the Holy Spirit's abilities, just as it isn't about the person who is the Pope.

(if the Roman Catholic Church is THE Church of Christ, then...)

Just as you can't elect a person who isn't an American citizen to be the president, you can't select someone who is outside the Church to lead it.

To select someone outside the Church (if somehow theoretically possible) would require that person to enter the Church (be baptized and chrismated) and then given Holy Orders. Only a valid Catholic blessed as a Bishop can be a Pope, i.e Hold the position as "Head of the Church".

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a name? If it happened, they would have had to reenter the Church prior to assuming the position (STS).

I have no name, but I thought I remembered reading of such as of late, and I don't recall if he did officially re-enter the Church or not... IDK

You are thinking about "Pope" Formosus"

Quote

As early as 872 he had been a candidate for the papal see, so that John possibly viewed him in the light of an opponent. On the flight of Formosus and the other papal officials, John convened a synod, 19 April, which ordered the fugitives to return to Rome. As they refused to obey this injunction, they were condemned by a second synod on 30 June. Against Formosus, should he fail to return, sentence of excommunication and deposition were pronounced by the first synod, the charges being that, impelled by ambition, he had aspired to the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and the Chair of Peter, had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. It follows from this that John saw in Formosus a rival whom he gravely suspected. The second synod of 30 June, after several new accusations had been brought against Formosus (e.g. that he had despoiled the cloisters in Rome, had performed the divine service in spite of the interdict, had conspired with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see), excluded him from the ranks of the clergy. Such charges, made against a man who was religious, moral, ascetic, and intellectual can only be referred to party spirit. The condemnation of Formosus and the others was announced to the emperor and the Synod of Ponthion in July. In 878 John himself came to France, and the deposition of Formosus, who appeared in person, was confirmed at the synod of Troyes. According to the acts of the synod, which are however of doubtful authenticity, the sentence of excommunication against Formosus was withdrawn, after he had promised on oath never to return to Rome or exercise his priestly functions......Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him.Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

OK, so I propose the following scenario. If the College of Cardinals elected SolEX01 to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, would I immediately gain the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the authority to speak ex cathedra even though I'm a mere layman and not in Communion with Rome?

Technically, any Catholic (layman, deacon, priest, or bishop) can become Pope. It is the current Church structure for simplicity, expediency and clerical expertise to keep elections to the College of Cardinals.

So, assuming you are a R Catholic layman who is selected to be Pope by popular demand. As Pope you are now the "head of the Church". You are the CEO, final decision maker, of the Catholic Church. It is the position, not the person, who has infallibility. Not by personal chrism of himself, but by the chrism of the infallible nature of the Church and having the last word as chief.

Of course, you would be ordained deacon>priest>bishop before assuming your role as the Pope, as well.

The Bishop of Rome doesn't have a special charism that other Bishops do not.

Pastor aeternus claims otherwise.

Quote

In this sense, Catholics agree with the Orthodox that all Bishops are equal, including the Bishop of Rome. As such, any Bishop could consecrate someone a Bishop of Rome, if it was done in accordance with canon law.

this new creature, a charism not confered by sacrement, rather guts the episcopate. the vatican is trying to deny the fact that is setting another order above the episcopate.

It is not another order at all. There are no orders above the level of bishop.

I thought that there was one Pope who had actually been excommunicated before he was made Pope...

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a name? If it happened, they would have had to reenter the Church prior to assuming the position (STS).

I have no name, but I thought I remembered reading of such as of late, and I don't recall if he did officially re-enter the Church or not... IDK

You are thinking about "Pope" Formosus"

Quote

As early as 872 he had been a candidate for the papal see, so that John possibly viewed him in the light of an opponent. On the flight of Formosus and the other papal officials, John convened a synod, 19 April, which ordered the fugitives to return to Rome. As they refused to obey this injunction, they were condemned by a second synod on 30 June. Against Formosus, should he fail to return, sentence of excommunication and deposition were pronounced by the first synod, the charges being that, impelled by ambition, he had aspired to the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and the Chair of Peter, had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. It follows from this that John saw in Formosus a rival whom he gravely suspected. The second synod of 30 June, after several new accusations had been brought against Formosus (e.g. that he had despoiled the cloisters in Rome, had performed the divine service in spite of the interdict, had conspired with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see), excluded him from the ranks of the clergy. Such charges, made against a man who was religious, moral, ascetic, and intellectual can only be referred to party spirit. The condemnation of Formosus and the others was announced to the emperor and the Synod of Ponthion in July. In 878 John himself came to France, and the deposition of Formosus, who appeared in person, was confirmed at the synod of Troyes. According to the acts of the synod, which are however of doubtful authenticity, the sentence of excommunication against Formosus was withdrawn, after he had promised on oath never to return to Rome or exercise his priestly functions......Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him.Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

I remember this story (as bizarre as it is). But the name does not sound familiar to the person I was thinking of, also I thought it was a bit more recent (after 1054 but before the 1500 perhaps?) I could be wrong and just dreamed the whole thing, wouldn't be the first time...